In 1900, most of our ancestors came here from shithole countries like Ireland and Hungary. For the life of me, I can't figure out why it's different now. Everyone's got to have someone to look down on, and everyone's got to have a boogie man, I guess. I also have some guesses as to how uneducated whites were duped into believing that immigrants were the cause of all their problems, instead of shysters like our President.

Because in 1900 this country NEEDED cheap labor and immigrants. We were begging people to come here to fill the coal mines and labor in the fields...shit we sent boats over to come get them with the promise of: you'll do better in this country

And while it was a marketing ploy, it fucking worked. It's a fair point in saying it helped the wealthy more but the worker gained benefits as well compared to what they had back home. I mean the Irish were starving to death..at least in the US they could provide food for their family. Now they probably weren't home much to enjoy the food but at least they weren't dying of starvation.

Our country has matured from a population standpoint and we don't need as many of these people (laborers) anymore. If you want to talk engineers/scientists/doctors/etc, then yes I believe we should expand our HB1 Visa opportunities

Sometimes life isn't fair. Sometimes you're born in a shit hole country and will never experience the opportunities the US provides. Sometimes you're born in the US and still fuck things up. Or your mom is a crack addict or some other shitty circumstance

And thank you 95- yes there is a stratospheric difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration, yet people want to lump them together for some political reason

We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States, undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.

In 1900, most of our ancestors came here from shithole countries like Ireland and Hungary. For the life of me, I can't figure out why it's different now. Everyone's got to have someone to look down on, and everyone's got to have a boogie man, I guess. I also have some guesses as to how uneducated whites were duped into believing that immigrants were the cause of all their problems, instead of shysters like our President.

No problem with LEGAL Immigration... Its the Invasion of Illegal immigrants.. Wait in line do your time welcome to America. Here is your new social security card..

Steven Miller and the current admin, says it wants to cut LEGAL immigration in half, and doesn't believe the New Colossus is applicable today, yet I hear people saying legal immigration is perfectly fine as long as immigrants wait in line. But in the same breadth, say they are on board with what this admin is doing at the border in curtailing immigration.

So which is it?

Then I hear dumpster say he wants immigrants from Norway, and not "shithole" countries looking for a handout, but most of this country has exported manufacturing because capitalism says it's best for the bottom line abusing foreign cheap labor, so the service industry is supposed to rely on what labor force? You want doctors and engineers and higher education types, but who is going to serve and clean up after them?

Sounds like this country wants everything and not give back. The definition of selfish, and we have a prezident* that embodies the ugly american. And why isn't anybody talking about how America has fucked those countries creating refugees and asylum seekers? As though america is innocent and the victim of abuse. . .Which is patently false.

_________________"I wish Fraudlin would get testicular cancer and die after he watches me anally penetrate his wife."

The problem with a pathway to citizenship for illegals, at least my issue with it, is it incentivises further illegal immigration. Where and how do you draw the line? Or are you all comfortable with any undocumented foreigner being able to come here freely and become a citizen? Personally, my preference is to incentivise LEGAL IMMIGRATION. I'm not heartless. I feel for most the people that want to come here. And I'm fairly welcoming. If we just made legal immigration more feasible I think that would solve a ton of the issues. Right now legal immigration is not feasible for the average person coming from Mexico/Central America.

I can go a couple ways with this.

1. Make legal immigration more feasible and give legal immigrants a pathway to citizenship, so people are less inclined to go the illegal route (and also up the penalties for those that do go the illegal route anyway).

2. Give a pathway to citizenship while simultaneously investing heavily in border security

The first is most likely to succeed in my opinion but perhaps unsustainable (there are only so many people the country can support). The latter is difficult (you're never going to stop illegal immigration) but provides a political compromise.

We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States, undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.

Barack Hussein Obama

What would he have to say about people turning themselves in seeking asylum?

The Reagan administration offered Amnesty and pathway to citizenship for illegals in 1986 with the passing of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. A year later he offered further protections to illegal minors by an executive order. The plan was to offer amnesty to illegals while creating stronger laws to curb illegal immigration. 35 years later everyone wants a do over. Odd that Republicans can point to their history as being the party that ultimately freed the slaves, and more recently ushered in Amnesty to large numbers of illegal immigrants that were predominantly latino. Meanwhile, Democratic party history is tarnished by ushering in the Jim Crowe laws and imprisoning Japanese Americans during WWII. Yet democrats have turned minorities into a large part of their voter base.

_________________Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."

People need to stop the bleeding heart bullshit and protect whats ours.. and what will be our grand kids one day...

See not as Salty today.. i am getting better..

To be clear, I was not questioning whether you care. Clearly you do not. I am telling you that your grasp of the situation and conditions motivating folks from Honduras and El Salvador, etc, to migrate here is woefully uninformed. The women are not migrating in order to seek handouts. They are seeking not to be raped and murdered.

I am not ready to concede that concern over women being murdered and raped is obviously and unequivocally "bleeding heart bullshit," as you put it.

Edit: I am not arguing that we should just let all these folks in, either. I am only trying to push back against what I perceive to be mischaracterizations of a lot of these folks.

_________________#CdnSteelerFanStrong

Orangesteel wrote:

We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.

The Reagan administration offered Amnesty and pathway to citizenship for illegals in 1986 with the passing of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. A year later he offered further protections to illegal minors by an executive order. The plan was to offer amnesty to illegals while creating stronger laws to curb illegal immigration. 35 years later everyone wants a do over. Odd that Republicans can point to their history as being the party that ultimately freed the slaves, and more recently ushered in Amnesty to large numbers of illegal immigrants that were predominantly latino. Meanwhile, Democratic party history is tarnished by ushering in the Jim Crowe laws and imprisoning Japanese Americans during WWII. Yet democrats have turned minorities into a large part of their voter base.

You really need to look up re-alignment. The Republican party of Lincoln is not the Republican party of today except in name.

And regardless of what Reagan did, the current Republican party opposes amnesty and pathway. So while the GOP can point to what it did 30 years ago, that it has to reach back that far is part of why minorities vote Dem.

The Reagan administration offered Amnesty and pathway to citizenship for illegals in 1986 with the passing of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. A year later he offered further protections to illegal minors by an executive order. The plan was to offer amnesty to illegals while creating stronger laws to curb illegal immigration. 35 years later everyone wants a do over. Odd that Republicans can point to their history as being the party that ultimately freed the slaves, and more recently ushered in Amnesty to large numbers of illegal immigrants that were predominantly latino. Meanwhile, Democratic party history is tarnished by ushering in the Jim Crowe laws and imprisoning Japanese Americans during WWII. Yet democrats have turned minorities into a large part of their voter base.

You really need to look up re-alignment. The Republican party of Lincoln is not the Republican party of today except in name.

And regardless of what Reagan did, the current Republican party opposes amnesty and pathway. So while the GOP can point to what it did 30 years ago, that it has to reach back that far is part of why minorities vote Dem.

When exactly did the democrats begin embracing amnesty and pathway? That is a fairly recent reversal for them. I don't think Dems have done all that much to deserve the minority support they get. They talk a better game. Maybe they give more lip service to minority issues and do a better job marketing their ideas to minorities. And they are certainly more cognizant of how not to offend minorities. But at the end of the day their accomplishments are pretty scant. Meanwhile the GOP rarely gets credit for efforts they make to address minority issues. Outside of some comments by Van Jones, has the GOP gotten any acknowledgment for the work they have done on criminal justice reform? I don't think the DNA of the Republican party has changed drastically since their formation. They still are the party that is most concerned with protecting individual liberties. And by no means am I saying Republicans are saints and Democrats are sinners. Both parties are capable of good and bad. I just would rather see Democrats earn minority support instead of getting it by either default or pandering for it.

_________________Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."

Last edited by SteelPro on Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Reagan administration offered Amnesty and pathway to citizenship for illegals in 1986 with the passing of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. A year later he offered further protections to illegal minors by an executive order. The plan was to offer amnesty to illegals while creating stronger laws to curb illegal immigration. 35 years later everyone wants a do over. Odd that Republicans can point to their history as being the party that ultimately freed the slaves, and more recently ushered in Amnesty to large numbers of illegal immigrants that were predominantly latino. Meanwhile, Democratic party history is tarnished by ushering in the Jim Crowe laws and imprisoning Japanese Americans during WWII. Yet democrats have turned minorities into a large part of their voter base.

You really need to look up re-alignment. The Republican party of Lincoln is not the Republican party of today except in name.

And regardless of what Reagan did, the current Republican party opposes amnesty and pathway. So while the GOP can point to what it did 30 years ago, that it has to reach back that far is part of why minorities vote Dem.

When exactly did the democrats begin embracing amnesty and pathway? That is a fairly recent reversal for them. I don't think Dems have done all that much to deserve the minority support they get. They talk a better game. Maybe they give more lip service to minority issues and do a better job marketing their ideas to minorities. And they are certainly more cognizant of how not to offend minorities. But at the need of the day their accomplishments are pretty scant. Meanwhile the GOP rarely gets credit for efforts they make to address minority issues. Outside of some comments by Van Jones, has the GOP gotten any acknowledgment for the work they have done on criminal justice reform? I don't think the DNA of the Republican party has changed drastically since their formation. They still are the party that is most concerned with protecting individual liberties. And by no means am I saying Republicans are saints and Democrats are sinners. But parties are capable of good and bad. I just would rather see Democrats earn minority support instead of getting it by either default or pandering for it.

I guess my question to you would be -- why has your party so readily abandoned the principles of Reagan and Lincoln? You like to bring them up as political figures that give you pride in being republican, but your party's ideals are vastly different than what those two men promoted. If Reagan is your ideal, why do you adopt policies that so flagrantly fly in the face of what he stood for?

Why did you abandon this? Why is Reagan, by today's standards, a bleeding heart liberal?

I guess my question to you would be -- why has your party so readily abandoned the principles of Reagan and Lincoln? You like to bring them up as political figures that give you pride in being republican, but your party's ideals are vastly different than what those two men promoted. If Reagan is your ideal, why do you adopt policies that so flagrantly fly in the face of what he stood for?

Why did you abandon this? Why is Reagan, by today's standards, a bleeding heart liberal?

Not my party. I'm as independent as they come. I have voted Republican, Democrat, and 3rd party. I do believe Reagan is the best President of my lifetime. But I don't believe my ideals have changed. Again, my issue with Amnesty is where do you draw the line? If every 30 years we need to extend Amnesty again don't you think something is fucking broken? Why would any foreigner obey our immigration laws if they know we will eventually just forgive them? As I said earlier, I believe we need to make legal immigration more attainable. Not just for educated wealthy Europeans. I'm talking average Jose's from Mexico and Central America too.

_________________Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."

At least as far back as when Gore was the nominee it was part of the platform.

And as far back as 96, the GOP was trying to obstruct his attempts to give citizenship to immigrants.

Bill Clinton was not a friend to immigration, I acknowledge that.

Quote:

That is a fairly recent reversal for them. I don't think Dems have done all that much to deserve the minority support they get. They talk a better game. Maybe they give more lip service to minority issues and do a better job marketing their ideas to minorities. And they are certainly more cognizant of how not to offend minorities. But at the end of the day their accomplishments are pretty scant.

I think you're underestimating how far a lot of this goes. Because Democrats -- fairly or not -- have taken ownership of minority issues as part of the platform, the Republican base (and party) has decided to be anti all of those policies. That's the climate we're in. If Dem/GOP is for it, GOP/Dem are against it.

But it also has to do with the GOP's constant threats to programs that benefit minorities coupled with their rhetoric and frankly, the type of politicians it supports (see: president trump).

Quote:

Meanwhile the GOP rarely gets credit for efforts they make to address minority issues. Outside of some comments by Van Jones, has the GOP gotten any acknowledgment for the work they have done on criminal justice reform?

Because the First Step act was bipartisan and they bungled the messaging. The only people who voted against it were Republicans. Literally all 36 house and all 12 senators to vote against it were Republican.

Quote:

I don't think the DNA of the Republican party has changed drastically since their formation.

They still are the party that is most concerned with protecting individual liberties..[/quote]

This is where I most disagree with you. Just as you say the Dems pay lip service to minority issues, the GOP pays lip service to individual liberty issues.

GOP against marijuana legalization (and for the war on drugs, generally)GOP anti-choice.GOP against assisted suicide.GOP still loves farm and business subsidies.GOP anti-unionGOP pro eminent domain (not just for the wall, but for pipelines, etc)GOP against importing certain medical devices (i.e. contact lenses)GOP against gay marriageGOP against lowering drinking ageGOP against lowering voting ageGOP against allowing doctors to instruct patients on certain items (dangers of keeping a loaded gun, abortion services)

I'm not saying the GOP is right or wrong on these policies. I have my beliefs but that's not what I'm here to debate. But the point is GOP is only for individual liberty when individual liberty also fits its agenda (which to me seems to be more about obstructing democrats than governing -- see health care debacle).

Quote:

Again, my issue with Amnesty is where do you draw the line? If every 30 years we need to extend Amnesty again don't you think something is fucking broken? Why would any foreigner obey our immigration laws if they know we will eventually just forgive them? As I said earlier, I believe we need to make legal immigration more attainable. Not just for educated wealthy Europeans. I'm talking average Jose's from Mexico and Central America too.

Amnesty is more practical and revenue-friendly than deportation or imprisonment.

I guess my question to you would be -- why has your party so readily abandoned the principles of Reagan and Lincoln? You like to bring them up as political figures that give you pride in being republican, but your party's ideals are vastly different than what those two men promoted. If Reagan is your ideal, why do you adopt policies that so flagrantly fly in the face of what he stood for?

Why did you abandon this? Why is Reagan, by today's standards, a bleeding heart liberal?

Not my party. I'm as independent as they come. I have voted Republican, Democrat, and 3rd party. I do believe Reagan is the best President of my lifetime. But I don't believe my ideals have changed. Again, my issue with Amnesty is where do you draw the line? If every 30 years we need to extend Amnesty again don't you think something is fucking broken? Why would any foreigner obey our immigration laws if they know we will eventually just forgive them? As I said earlier, I believe we need to make legal immigration more attainable. Not just for educated wealthy Europeans. I'm talking average Jose's from Mexico and Central America too.

While I don't necessarily agree or disagree re: Regan (I'm a student of history, but I was admittedly 3 years old when he left office), I can't fault anything else you said.

People need to stop the bleeding heart bullshit and protect whats ours.. and what will be our grand kids one day...

See not as Salty today.. i am getting better..

To be clear, I was not questioning whether you care. Clearly you do not. I am telling you that your grasp of the situation and conditions motivating folks from Honduras and El Salvador, etc, to migrate here is woefully uninformed. The women are not migrating in order to seek handouts. They are seeking not to be raped and murdered.

I am not ready to concede that concern over women being murdered and raped is obviously and unequivocally "bleeding heart bullshit," as you put it.

Edit: I am not arguing that we should just let all these folks in, either. I am only trying to push back against what I perceive to be mischaracterizations of a lot of these folks.

then the first country they get into that doesn't rape and murder should be fine... that would be Mexico.. are you telling me that Mexico rapes and murders all the women?? BTW I am not uninformed.. I live in a border town I know why they are here.. if it was to just leave the country that was making them deathly afraid or political prosecution then Mexico should be the final stop.. but its not.. Why?? because they don't have the free handout goodies that we offer here.. Simple as that.. If you think differently then you at the one uninformed.

People need to stop the bleeding heart bullshit and protect whats ours.. and what will be our grand kids one day...

See not as Salty today.. i am getting better..

To be clear, I was not questioning whether you care. Clearly you do not. I am telling you that your grasp of the situation and conditions motivating folks from Honduras and El Salvador, etc, to migrate here is woefully uninformed. The women are not migrating in order to seek handouts. They are seeking not to be raped and murdered.

I am not ready to concede that concern over women being murdered and raped is obviously and unequivocally "bleeding heart bullshit," as you put it.

Edit: I am not arguing that we should just let all these folks in, either. I am only trying to push back against what I perceive to be mischaracterizations of a lot of these folks.

then the first country they get into that doesn't rape and murder should be fine... that would be Mexico.. are you telling me that Mexico rapes and murders all the women?? BTW I am not uninformed.. I live in a border town I know why they are here.. if it was to just leave the country that was making them deathly afraid or political prosecution then Mexico should be the final stop.. but its not.. Why?? because they don't have the free handout goodies that we offer here.. Simple as that.. If you think differently then you at the one uninformed.

I could grant all that and still deny that the reason they leave they country’s is merely to get a free handout. Of course if they leave they would rather be here than Mexico.

Also, you’re basically saying you can see Russia from your house.

_________________#CdnSteelerFanStrong

Orangesteel wrote:

We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.

SteelKnife makes a valid point about the GOP talking a better game when it comes to protecting individual liberties than actually doing it. With that said, some of his examples don’t fit that argument. The abortion stance is rooted in protecting the right to life of the unborn... life being an individual liberty. Being labeled anti-union was the result of efforts to protect individual interests that unions can infringe on.

_________________Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."

You want a bunch of 18 year olds checking boxes that impact your life?

I sure a hell don’t.

I’d support raising the voting age to say 25. By then you are likley out of college or nearly out of college and most likely have some work experience.

You might still be a dumbass at that point but chances are you are less of a dumbass than you were at 18.

What about the 18 year old whose work experience is serving in Afghanistan -- should he be able to vote?

Further, do I want a bunch of senile 85 year olds making decisions that will have absolutely no effect on them but will have tremendous impact on mine and future generations? No, not really. But here we are.

At least the 18 year olds will be around to deal with the ramifications of their vote.

SteelKnife makes a valid point about the GOP talking a better game when it comes to protecting individual liberties than actually doing it. With that said, some of his examples don’t fit that argument. The abortion stance is rooted in protecting the right to life of the unborn... life being an individual liberty. Being labeled anti-union was the result of efforts to protect individual interests that unions can infringe on.

Being labeled anti-union was, at least recently, the result of prominent GOP politicians at the state level (Walker, Christie) being anti-union.

I recognize there is an individual liberty argument for abortion, but disallowing it also infringes upon individual liberty. In that scenario, where government intervention infringes on individual liberty, shouldn't the default position for someone who favors individual liberty and small government be to stay out of it?

Quote:

You say that as if it’s a bad thing.

You want a bunch of 18 year olds checking boxes that impact your life?

I sure a hell don’t.

I’d support raising the voting age to say 25. By then you are likley out of college or nearly out of college and most likely have some work experience.

You might still be a dumbass at that point but chances are you are less of a dumbass than you were at 18.

Maybe, but my point was about respecting individual liberty. There's nothing "individual liberty" about the arbitrary 18 age, especially without a voting age cap.

You want a bunch of 18 year olds checking boxes that impact your life?

I sure a hell don’t.

I’d support raising the voting age to say 25. By then you are likley out of college or nearly out of college and most likely have some work experience.

You might still be a dumbass at that point but chances are you are less of a dumbass than you were at 18.

What about the 18 year old whose work experience is serving in Afghanistan -- should he be able to vote?

Further, do I want a bunch of senile 85 year olds making decisions that will have absolutely no effect on them but will have tremendous impact on mine and future generations? No, not really. But here we are.

At least the 18 year olds will be around to deal with the ramifications of their vote.

Being a former Marine myself you raise a great point. I do believe if you are old enough to fight and maybe die for your country you should be able to grab a beer in a bar or vote in an election.

It’s why the drinking age on military installations is 18 rather than 21. At least that is the way it was when I was in.

For the most part however, no, I don’t want run of the mill 18 year olds voting on shit.

Most dont even know what it is they dont know. And that can be applied to military personnel just as well. The difference however is that one is making potentially what could be a huge sacrifice while the other could be a high school drop out that lives in his mommy’s basement getting high while playing video games. The kid likely could not locate Venezuela on a map.

Or maybe even South Dakota.

I personally don’t want that kid influencing my life.

No perfect solution however.

You are talking with someone that believes some sort of minimum aptitude should be required before being able to have a say in the lives of others.